Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: B.Net Culture & Variable Spam Filters: A Manifesto Followed by ...
  • Subject: B.Net Culture & Variable Spam Filters: A Manifesto Followed by ...
Subject: B.Net Culture & Variable Spam Filters: A Manifesto Followed by ...

Halo3Planet, the place for all things Halo 3..

Need help finding skulls, make sure to go here.

Posted by: elmicker
Posted by: roman arrow12
Trust is earned, not given.


This is not SA, this is not NeoGAF. Trust is given. We're all equal.


Really, we're all equal? Is that why moderators are obviously more lenient in the Community Forum than in the Halo 3 forum? No matter what you say, we aren't equal at this site. In this forum, there is a topic that is solely about a member asking how they can get the B.net logo behind their name. If the user is not able to post for a bit, then maybe he would have used the search feature and realized that he didn't need to make a whole new post.

And, to everyone saying that this idea will require people to make "long, thought out posts", it won't. This idea only applies to people who make the stupid one line posts, like you fail and rick roll links. At least, that's the way I interpreted it.

  • 08.01.2007 12:17 PM PDT

Strange evolution how people have come to believe
That we are it's greatest achievement
We're barely, we're just a collection of cells
Overrating themselves

Posted by: roman arrow12
Posted by: elmicker
Posted by: roman arrow12
Trust is earned, not given.


This is not SA, this is not NeoGAF. Trust is given. We're all equal.


Really, we're all equal? Is that why moderators are obviously more lenient in the Community Forum than in the Halo 3 forum? No matter what you say, we aren't equal at this site. In this forum, there is a topic that is solely about a member asking how they can get the B.net logo behind their name. If the user is not able to post for a bit, then maybe he would have used the search feature and realized that he didn't need to make a whole new post.

And, to everyone saying that this idea will require people to make "long, thought out posts", it won't. This idea only applies to people who make the stupid one line posts, like you fail and rick roll links. At least, that's the way I interpreted it.

Yes, we are all equal. The only forum that is strictly regulated is the Halo 3 forum. It doesnt take a brainiac to figure out why that is. Its not that members are treated differently, its the forums that are treated differently, and rightly so.

  • 08.01.2007 12:31 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Destinypedia - The Wiki for Bungie's Destiny
Posted by: DEATHPIMP72
Anyone but Foman. He smells like cheese.

Posted by: elmicker
Trust is given. We're all equal.

Posted by: twinkiemaker
Yes, we are all equal. The only forum that is strictly regulated is the Halo 3 forum. It doesnt take a brainiac to figure out why that is. Its not that members are treated differently, its the forums that are treated differently, and rightly so.

No, we are not "all equal" and any such assertion is blatantly wrong. Such a statement is a gross oversimplification of the truth. What you probably (and hopefully, for your sakes) meant to say is that we all have equal rights and equal opportunity on this forum. Not that we "are all equal."

Just like in real life (at least in most places) where people generally (ideally) have equal rights and opportunities, here, everybody has an equal right and equal opportunity to participate in these forums. What a user does with that opportunity is what creates inequality. Users are not treated identically here, nor should they be, nor COULD they be.

You also say that trust is given not earned because this is bungie.net and not a different forum. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. And by the way, Achronos and pretty much everybody else disagrees with you.
Posted by: Achronos
[O]f course the Septagon users are more trusted . . . . Septagon regulars have earned the freedom to not always be on topic, to stretch the rules a bit. The Halo 3 forum, on the other hand, is regularly spammed by its own regulars, making stupid posts, flamewars, etc. Many of those regulars behave like small children, and thus will be treated as such until they figure out that kind of behavior isn't tolerated. . . .

Everything is not equal. The same standards do not apply to each forum . . . .

<emphasis added>


Speaking of "trust" is a bit of an amorphous concept, considering that the collective "trust" of bungie.net is made up of many different minds. But it seems more than just a little bit silly to claim that everybody is equal and that trust is given, not earned. Would you make a brand new member a moderator? Would you allow a brand new member to have full control in a private group? Would you let somebody who you never spoke to or met before have your bungie.net password?

It's silly to say that trust is given right off the bat here -- I'm sure it's been awhile since you created a new account, but you must remember that new users are prohibited from thread-creation for 24 hours. I don't see you complaining about that concept. Nor do I see you complaining about the concept that a blacklisted user is one who, by definition, is not trusted to post anymore. All my idea does is take these concepts a bit further by requiring new users to wait a few minutes before posting again and untrusted users to wait several minutes between posts until they can raise their trust rating again. It's not facist, it's not dictatorial, and a user can very easily remove any restrictions simply by virtue of following the rules over time.

It's really not that hard, nor is it elitist, nor does it "stratify" the general population. It does not cause users to go to other sites any more than a user having to wait 24 hours to create his or her own threads or a blacklisted user being unable to post does. As has already been noted, the vast majority of users on this side are perfectly good members and this idea would not affect them. It would affect "untrusted" or "bad" users, and it would have a positive effect with minimal detriments on new members.

I think that you guys are really failing to see the simplicity of the system and, to be honest, it seems like you are caught up in some kind of auto-argument that ignores common sense and pretty much every valid counter-argument.

Frankly, it's a bit weird.

[Edited on 08.01.2007 1:47 PM PDT]

  • 08.01.2007 1:38 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: x Foman123 x
You also say that trust is given not earned because this is bungie.net and not a different forum.


Trust is given. As a basic member, you start out like every other member. You know you are equal to the other members, and only your behaivour from then on in can affect that. Your system puts all new members beneath long-term members. That's wrong.

Would you make a brand new member a moderator?
Would you allow a brand new member to have full control in a private group?
Would you let somebody who you never spoke to or met before have your bungie.net password?


I'm sure you understand, what with your glorious intellect and all, the concept of a straw man. So i'm not even going to bother.

...I don't see you complaining about that concept.

Please, read my post. I do mention it. The reason i'm not opposed to it is because its intention is not to split the community, as you want, but simply to hinder the use of alt accounts in spam attacks.

It would affect "untrusted" or "bad" users, and it would have a minimal positive effect on new members.

Since when was increased restrictions on posting a positive effect?

I think that you guys are really failing to see the simplicity of the system and, to be honest, it seems like you are caught up in some kind of auto-argument that ignores common sense and pretty much every valid counter-argument.

Common sense? Hah.

You're trying to split the community into two. The upper segment, entirely defined by you as trusted members, and the lower segment of untrustworthy scum, with new members automatically sorted into the lower segment until they earn your trust. This is nothing else but pure snobbery.

[Edited on 08.01.2007 4:01 PM PDT]

  • 08.01.2007 2:27 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Destinypedia - The Wiki for Bungie's Destiny
Posted by: DEATHPIMP72
Anyone but Foman. He smells like cheese.

Posted by: elmicker
Posted by: x Foman123 x
You also say that trust is given not earned because this is bungie.net and not a different forum.


Trust is given. As a basic member, you start out like every other member. You know you are equal to the other members, and only your behaivour from then on in can affect that. Your system puts all new members beneath long-term members. That's wrong.

No, you are wrong. This idea does not put new members beneath "long-term" members; it puts new members at a trust level slightly below trusted members, regardless of the length of their membership. Just like you do every day both on bungie.net and with strangers as opposed to friends in real life. Like I said and agreed with before, everybody begins here with an equal opportunity and equal rights. Prove yourself trustworthy, and you receive more benefits. Prove yourself untrustworthy, and you become restricted in your permitted actions. My idea follows this basic concept that is already in place on the Bungie.net forums and pretty much everywhere else in the world.

So why on Earth are you fighting so hard to say that something like this is "wrong"? What fundamental moral value is being violated? What negative consequences are so dire that this idea reeks of "snobbery" and "elitism"? Are you serious?

Would you make a brand new member a moderator?
Would you allow a brand new member to have full control in a private group?
Would you let somebody who you never spoke to or met before have your bungie.net password?

I'm sure you understand, what with your glorious intellect and all, the concept of a straw man. So i'm not even going to bother.

I do indeed, but you apparently do not. God I hate hypocrites. See below.

...I don't see you complaining about that concept.
Please, read my post. I do mention it.
I read your post, and I still don't see you complaining about it.

The reason i'm not opposed to it is because its intention is not to split the community, as you want, but simply to hinder the use of alt accounts in spam attacks.Straw man, you hypocrite.

It would affect "untrusted" or "bad" users, and it would have a minimal positive effect on new members.
Since when was increased restrictions on posting a positive effect?

Umm, ever since the beginning of the internet? You don't think that blacklisting a bad poster is a positive effect? Granted, that you are now trying to expand your argument into more general terms and I attacked it on those grounds, but even increased restrictions on new users could be a positive effect for the reasons that I've already mentioned over and over again in this thread. You see, this is why I think that you're on "auto-argument/trolling" mode rather than actually debating this concept.

I think that you guys are really failing to see the simplicity of the system and, to be honest, it seems like you are caught up in some kind of auto-argument that ignores common sense and pretty much every valid counter-argument.
Common sense? Hah.

You're trying to split the community into two. The upper segment, entirely defined by you as trusted members, and the lower segment of untrustworthy scum, with new members automatically sorted into the lower segment until they earn your trust. This is nothing else but pure snobbery and elitism.
Straw man again. This idea does not split anybody, nor am I "trying to split the community." Actually, that statement is freaking ludicrous.... have you seen the community projects I've been involved in? Are you insane?

I went to great pains in my first post to explain how to avoid the misnomered "elitism" arguments, and yet with you it's like I never made them.

*sigh* I'll try again. It is a sliding, invisible scale whose inner workings are automated and hidden to everyone except Achronos. Nobody would know where their "trust rating" lay except in terms of vague, inaccurate conversations with others. Nobody could look at another user's post or profile and declare themselves more or less trusted. And considering that most users are rule-abiding and do not even try to post more than once every few minutes, there would be no constant or visible reminder. So where is the "pure" snobbery and elitism? I think you're taking this a little too far.

There IS no "lower segment" or "upper segment." And I still believe that it would be appropriate to restrict new members under this idea. But just arguendo, let's assume that new members were allowed to post once every 30 seconds or 1 minute, as they are now, until and unless their trust rating were lowered via alt account login, warnings, blacklistings, or whatever other kinds of things lower your trust rating under Achronos's system. What would you think about this idea then?

[Edited on 08.01.2007 3:14 PM PDT]

  • 08.01.2007 3:09 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: x Foman123 x
it puts new members at a trust level slightly below trusted members, regardless of the length of their membership.


So you fluffed it up a bit and added some italics. It still says the same thing. New members, by their very existence as new members, are inferior to the general average membership.

Prove yourself untrustworthy, and you become restricted in your permitted actions.

You're changing it around here. Your concept was first to prove yourself trustworthy.

So why on Earth are you fighting so hard to say that something like this is "wrong"? What fundamental moral value is being violated? What negative consequences are so dire that this idea reeks of "snobbery" and "elitism"? Are you serious?

You consider yourself a trustworthy member. Judging by your posts, your ideal trustworthy member is, in fact, you. Therefore, your conept is to place members such as yourself, on a level above other members. This is sheer snobbery.

I do indeed, but you apparently do not. God I hate hypocrites. See below.

You hate yourself? If you understood a straw man, and actually believed in your concept as something to improve the forums, you wouldn't use them. You used 3, in a row. That thar's hypocrisy!

Straw man, you hypocrite.

Straw man: The arguer makes up a proposition never offered by her opponent (usually weaker than the true proposition) and then attacks it as if his opponent had offered that proposition. This is most common on Internet chat sites.

I didn't make up any propositions. Your concepts split the community by virtue of your personal concept of trust. The 24 hour filter is an anti-spam tool. As such, i'm in favour of the latter as a necessary evil, but very opposed to the former.

You don't think that blacklisting a bad poster is a positive effect?

Blacklisting? Way to straw man my argument. Again. No one had previously mentioned blacklisting - yet you raise it as a weaker argument than the one i actually presented, and then attack it.

Granted, that you are now trying to expand your argument into more general terms and I attacked it on those grounds, but even increased restrictions on new users could be a positive effect for the reasons that I've already mentioned over and over again in this thread. You see, this is why I think that you're on "auto-argument/trolling" mode rather than actually debating this concept.

Again - you're automatically assuming that new members need restricting. New members should, as much as possible, be brought into the community as full members, and encouraged to take part as equals. Restricting them upon joining is essentially saying "-blam!- you, i was here first, prove yourself and you can join me up here."

This idea does not split anybody

So... what does it do? It grades members based on a trust scale, and restricts them based on that. This splits the community into those who are free to do as they wish, and those who are heavily restricted. Roughly speaking, the trusted, and those who are not. A split community.

have you seen the community projects I've been involved in?

No. Most of them take place in private groups or off site - something else i may choose to rant at you about if you raise it in the future. Try searching for the 7th Column council project.

Are you insane?

I don't know. Are you a psychiatrist?

And I still believe that it would be appropriate to restrict new members under this idea.

And that's probably the only reason most people are opposed to this.

But just arguendo, let's assume that new members were allowed to post once every 30 seconds or 1 minute, as they are now, until and unless their trust rating were lowered via alt account login, warnings, blacklistings, or whatever other kinds of things lower your trust rating under Achronos's system. What would you think about this idea then?

Then I'd probably be less opposed. However, aside from the idealistic flaws, it's just a stupid system. Why restrict posting using an overcomplex system based on an unproven and probably unreliable trust system, when you can just ban the tossers? All you're left with then is the promotion segment of your concept, which brings us to what it's really about. Another thinly veiled attempt to institute your previously suggested Senior/Veteran member status. If someone is to be trusted with any priveleges over the normal membership, then they should probably just be promoted as moderators. Your system serves no purpose. It doesn't stop spam, it wouldn't improve the quality of posts and it wouldn't improve the quality of the membership. As such, there's no reason to institute it. I could've said that at the start, but watching you put so much effort into pointless posts is almost funny, at times.

I've also been asked to direct you to #moap (go here and type /j #moap). Several people watching this exchange have been looking to chat to you in a more informal environment.

(also. italicised legal terms on an internet forum. lulz.)
(also. also. You've said Achronos 11 times in this thread. lulz.)

[Edited on 08.01.2007 4:03 PM PDT]

  • 08.01.2007 3:59 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Destinypedia - The Wiki for Bungie's Destiny
Posted by: DEATHPIMP72
Anyone but Foman. He smells like cheese.

Posted by: elmicker
Posted by: x Foman123 x
it puts new members at a trust level slightly below trusted members, regardless of the length of their membership.

So you fluffed it up a bit and added some italics. It still says the same thing. New members, by their very existence as new members, are inferior to the general average membership.

No, no it doesn't say the same thing. You have changed your statement. Before you said that new members were inferior to long-term members. No. They are simply less trusted than trusted members, to say the obvious, and a long-term member could be an untrusted one just as easily as he or she could be trusted.

Prove yourself untrustworthy, and you become restricted in your permitted actions.
You're changing it around here. Your concept was first to prove yourself trustworthy.

The concept is that everybody starts at a middle ground and becomes more or less trusted based on their actions. This is no different from the way you act in real life, unless you're a sociopath.

So why on Earth are you fighting so hard to say that something like this is "wrong"? What fundamental moral value is being violated? What negative consequences are so dire that this idea reeks of "snobbery" and "elitism"? Are you serious?
You consider yourself a trustworthy member. Judging by your posts, your ideal trustworthy member is, in fact, you. Therefore, your conept is to place members such as yourself, on a level above other members. This is sheer snobbery.

Another blatant misstatement. I have no idea what a trusted member is -- that depends on the "stealth trust-rating" system. It has little or nothing to do with my own personal feelings, as I have said all along. Come on, elmicker, now you're just making crap up.

Straw man, you hypocrite.
Straw man: The arguer makes up a proposition never offered by her opponent (usually weaker than the true proposition) and then attacks it as if his opponent had offered that proposition. This is most common on Internet chat sites.

I didn't make up any propositions. Your concepts split the community by virtue of your personal concept of trust. The 24 hour filter is an anti-spam tool. As such, i'm in favour of the latter as a necessary evil, but very opposed to the former.

"You're trying to split the community in two." I never said anything like that, or even close to that. Now you're making things up again by saying that this is based on my personal concept of trust -- I've never said any such thing and have always related this entirely to the automated user-trust rating system embedded in this website. Last time I checked, that system has never asked me for my opinion.

You don't think that blacklisting a bad poster is a positive effect?
Blacklisting? Way to straw man my argument. Again. No one had previously mentioned blacklisting - yet you raise it as a weaker argument than the one i actually presented, and then attack it.
What? Um dude you said that there were no positive effects arising from restricting users' posts.... hello?

Again - you're automatically assuming that new members need restricting. New members should, as much as possible, be brought into the community as full members, and encouraged to take part as equals. Restricting them upon joining is essentially saying "-blam!- you, i was here first, prove yourself and you can join me up here."
I disagree.

This idea does not split anybody
So... what does it do? It grades members based on a trust scale, and restricts them based on that. This splits the community into those who are free to do as they wish, and those who are heavily restricted. Roughly speaking, the trusted, and those who are not. A split community.

How is that any different from what we already have here? Blacklisted users and non-blacklisted users -- an even larger restriction.

have you seen the community projects I've been involved in?
No. Most of them take place in private groups or off site - something else i may choose to rant at you about if you raise it in the future. Try searching for the 7th Column council project.
I'm familiar with that god-awful failure.

And I still believe that it would be appropriate to restrict new members under this idea.
And that's probably the only reason most people are opposed to this.
Yes, just look at all the people who have posted here supporting you. You're really winning this one.

However, aside from the idealistic flaws, it's just a stupid system. Why restrict posting using an overcomplex system based on an unproven and probably unreliable trust system, when you can just ban the tossers? All you're left with then is the promotion segment of your concept, which brings us to what it's really about. Another thinly veiled attempt to institute your previously suggested Senior/Veteran member status.OMG no it's not. Get real dude. I have no problem with defending that idea on its own merits. This idea, however, has nothing to do with status.

If someone is to be trusted with any priveleges over the normal membership, then they should probably just be promoted as moderators. Your system serves no purpose. It doesn't stop spam, it wouldn't improve the quality of posts and it wouldn't improve the quality of the membership. As such, there's no reason to institute it. I could've said that at the start, but watching you put so much effort into pointless posts is almost funny, at times.Quit rubbing yourself. It takes no effort to destroy your arguments, those marvelous displays of weak thinking encased in faux-eloquent wording. But I will admit that you have been extremely brave, so good for you.

I've also been asked to direct you to #moap (go here and type /j #moap). Several people watching this exchange have been looking to chat to you in a more informal environment.This is not a formal environment. Tell them to post here. I don't get IRC from this computer.

LATE EDIT: Okay, I lost my cool a bit here. Sorry to anyone I may have offended.

[Edited on 08.01.2007 9:50 PM PDT]

  • 08.01.2007 4:41 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

tl;dnr but no.

  • 08.01.2007 5:01 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member

Bungie listens to its fans! ^.^ | Ninja .II./ You
RCG: In ur base, steelin' ur flagz. | Watch the demo, then join the carnage!

Please, please, the both of you - stop it with these huge post-splittings. I'm sure we are not so intellectually inept that we can only deal with one sentence at a time, so there's no reason to divide up each other's paragraphs and arguments as such. Unless it's for your benefit..?

Elmicker: "Elitism" is an irritating buzzword coughed up to try and moot any and all suggestions on these forums. You've done quite well to steer clear of it (except once) but "snobbery" is the same... This idea has some merit, although it's encroaching on dangerous waters. Don't be too harsh, little troll. [;

Foman: Your posts could do with a few less long words and a few more coherent reasons to back up claims. For instance, "faux-eloquent wording", while absolutely delicious in the perfectness of its irony, dragged the tone of your post down to a level of - ahem - pseudo-intellectual condescension. Try to build on your own points, adapt them, as opposed to rabidly debating with elmicker to "destroy" his.

  • 08.01.2007 5:03 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Saint
Please, please, the both of you - stop it with these huge post-splittings. I'm sure we are not so intellectually inept that we can only deal with one sentence at a time, so there's no reason to divide up each other's paragraphs and arguments as such. Unless it's for your benefit..?

Elmicker: "Elitism" is an irritating buzzword coughed up to try and moot any and all suggestions on these forums. You've done quite well to steer clear of it (except once) but "snobbery" is the same... This idea has some merit, although it's encroaching on dangerous waters. Don't be too harsh, little troll. [;

Foman: Your posts could do with a few less long words and a few more coherent reasons to back up claims. For instance, "faux-eloquent wording", while absolutely delicious in the perfectness of its irony, dragged the tone of your post down to a level of - ahem - pseudo-intellectual condescension. Try to build on your own points, adapt them, as opposed to rabidly debating with elmicker to "destroy" his.


Are you a parent because you have good parenting skills :)

Yeah you guys should try to listen to each other a bit. I think that you both are getting a tad hot headed about your posts. I almost thought this thread was going to go off topic. You both make good points. As far as the topic goes I think that this idea has some big pros and cons. However, I am really concerned with the cons at this point. I am really curious to see as to how far bungie would take this idea and their individual opinions on this topic. The problem is I do not think a forum has ever done this before. It is just too unpredictable.

  • 08.01.2007 5:18 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Destinypedia - The Wiki for Bungie's Destiny
Posted by: DEATHPIMP72
Anyone but Foman. He smells like cheese.

"Threads Gone Wild #41" now showing on Fox, tonight at 8 eastern, 7 central.

<edited from original... sorry to anyone I may have offended>

[Edited on 08.01.2007 9:48 PM PDT]

  • 08.01.2007 5:41 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: x Foman123 x
"Threads Gone Wild #41" now showing on Fox, tonight at 8 eastern, 7 central.

Wow I missed the first 40 episodes!!!



Thanks for the tips Saint; I love it when people come in and derail a thread, trying to end a debate that they think has gone too far by insulting everybody. This thread will now never go back on-topic again. Oh well, it was a good run. I guess the mods can lock it up if you wish. Or not.

It isn't that you were insulting everbody. It just got a little to hot for other people to handle. And instead of locking the thread it would be interesting to see what mods have to say on the topic.

  • 08.01.2007 5:46 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member

Bungie listens to its fans! ^.^ | Ninja .II./ You
RCG: In ur base, steelin' ur flagz. | Watch the demo, then join the carnage!

Aha. Had I white text, I doubt you'd be so flippant! If you'll recall, I said your original idea had merit. I didn't insult you, I merely called you on a point that was causing you to derail your own thread and spin it into a negative spiral. As for elmicker, I didn't "insult" him - I poked a little fun at him, because he's my friend and I knew he wouldn't take offence.

I didn't want to end your thread, or derail it... I wanted to end the argument, and put the thread back on track toward civilised debate.

  • 08.01.2007 5:50 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Saint
Aha. Had I white text, I doubt you'd be so flippant! If you'll recall, I said your original idea had merit. I didn't insult you, I merely called you on a point that was causing you to derail your own thread and spin it into a negative spiral. As for elmicker, I didn't "insult" him - I poked a little fun at him, because he's my friend and I knew he wouldn't take offence.

I didn't want to end your thread, or derail it... I wanted to end the argument, and put the thread back on track toward civilised debate.


I think is hilarious...

*giggles in corner*

  • 08.01.2007 6:36 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

SPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!

The Trust system. As the name clearly implies, its a method of determining who may be trustworthy on this site an who may need to try a little harder in order to earn our trust.

First of all, trust HAS to be earned. New members do start off with less trust than members who have been here for awhile and who more or less behave appropriately. Foman is not making that up. You have to gain trust in order for your trust rating to increase. You do that by behaving, plain and simple. Apparently there are quite a few variables to the trust rating, but one of the paramount quantifiers is punishment. A user who gets lots of warnings and bannings obviously has a lower trust rating than a user who does not receive warnings and blacklists. Your behavior is an important part of your trust rating, as it should be. That being the case, at least in as far as the trust system, no one is equal. Everyone has the rating they earned as dictated by their behavior. Add to that the myriad of other variables, and everyone will have a different trust rating for very different reasons.

What is equal about everyone on this site is their ability to reply to topics and interact with the forums. Everyone who is not banned can do all of the above, as much or as little as everyone else. Although this idea may change a portion of that kind of equality, I think the basics are left intact. In that, everyone who is not banned can reply to topics on this site. That won't change.

What Foman is saying is; based on his understanding of the trust system, (or as he admits his lack thereof) an extra echelon of punishment based on one's trust quantifiers may help the quality and/or quantity of problem posts on this site. As per his understanding, trust is mostly based on warnings and bans from moderators. He's partially right there. I don't understand the ins and outs of the trust system very well, but I know that is a factor. Although moderators and admins don't exactly have a direct method of manipulating a user's trust rating via a karma system, they do have an impact. Its not exactly individual input because there are a multitude of other quantifiers, and because it will require more than one moderator or admin's input in order to change anything drastically.

Meaning, a user who receives lots of warnings and/or blacklists would be further punished by adding time to the spam filter for them. So a user who is likely punished a lot for making bad posts/topics will likely then receive more punishment for their mistakes and hopefully learn to follow the path of civil discussion.

I don't think anything there is wrong with this idea. Its another option that has potential. Its not really attempting to coerce anyone into behaving or posting like Foman, its another way of encouraging users to simply follow the rules.

What I'd like to add to this is no change from the current spam filter's time for a new user (30 seconds). A new user should start out at a 30 second spam filter. I'd also add that there will be no shorter time for anyone. It would never be any shorter than 30 seconds for anyone, regardless of their trust rating or their security level. The only change that could happen in regards to the spam filter would be only for users who have recently earned a low trust rating. They should have to wait longer than everyone else who more or less plays by the rules. 10 or 20 minutes may be a bit harsh, so I suggest a 1 to 3 minute wait. It may not have the desired affect Foman laid out in his OP, but I can live with that. I think that there would quickly be a lot of backlash from users who had to wait that long. On the main forums, it probably would not be a big deal, because they would be banned. But, they could still send angry PMs to whomever they intended to flame. Having to wait longer would likely make the severity of those PMs increase to the kinds of the PMs that I get. Most users would not like that at all, and there would be no real way of punishing a user for doing that.

Risks vs rewards, pro's and con's.

I think that your idea may help a bit Foman, but it probably wouldn't be that site altering. It would encourage some users stop breaking the rules, but it wouldn't be any more effective than regular blacklists for most of the users here. Some of them just don't care. Or, some of them simply refuse to think about consequences on the spur of the moment, so they don't alter their behavior one iota.

I guess Achronos would be the only person who could really shed light onto whether or not this is a good idea, because he's the only one who truly understands the trust system.

-Sorry if any of this is a bit convoluted or hard to understand. I suck at multi-tasking.


[Edited on 08.01.2007 7:04 PM PDT]

  • 08.01.2007 7:01 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

hey fromam

GTFO this website

And while you're speaking of good users and bad users, is this or is this not you in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

Fairly insightful you will all no doubt agree.

  • 08.01.2007 7:04 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Edit: If this is dragging or has mispells and what not, I will fix in the morning- I am posting 12 am my time.


Thanks for posting this evilcam. It really sorts this type of topic out. You are right in the fact that Achronos is probably the only person to answer the topic.

However, if you think about it in the upcoming months of Halo 3, MANY people will be getting moderator notices and what not. I mean if there are midnight launches the East Coast will giving spoilers to the west like crazy on these forums. Many people will see notices and what not. Just because they are hyped should they have to wait to post every few minutes? Some might say yes to calm down the forums. However, this could lead to a very slow moving system and community.

It is possible people will be angry and just continue to just as you said. Some might just leave. The problem I have is the risk factor.

Like I said above this would need some major thinking and testing before being implemented.

Another thing is if we still only get a 30 second anti spam filter, then how else would "good posters" be rewarded? If the good players are not rewarded, then this kinda defeats its purpose in a way. There are other ways to help the forums without this reward/punishment option. Why not choose another idea (I will be making a topic on one early in the morning actually)? If the only benefit is to increase the amount of time of a "Bad poster's" anti spam filter, then I am not crazy about the idea. Like I stated above this would hurt users who often do not make as many mistakes (they make one and what? They have to wait 30 more seconds to post again?).

From what it seems like (I might be wrong) it is much harder to gain trust than it is to loose it (which is also the case in real life). If this is the truth then one mistake and you might slow down your spam filter. Some people may get angry and then they flame about it- such as you said evilcam they are blacklisted and then there spam filter takes more time to post.

The big problem I see now is it would take a lot more time to bring back up your spam filter than it would to drop it. You might have made one stupid post (which I have done in the past myself). Then you add on like 15-30 seconds to your spam filter. And now you spend 3 weeks trying to earn it back.

I really hope that bungie looks at some of these negatives before implementing this idea. It is a great idea. But just so complex.

[Edited on 08.01.2007 8:54 PM PDT]

  • 08.01.2007 8:51 PM PDT

Proof there is a God.
My RT account page.
My Grifball user page.
So if you really want to get to know me, you're welcome to add me anywhere.

I think evilcam just suggested a really watered down version of Foman's original idea. The point was to make something somewhat visible. I agree, evilcam, that 10-20 minutes is entirely too long, but only 2 minutes is something that is easily completely unnoticeable. I don't post very often at all, and heck, I could have a 5-minute post-timer, and I wouldn't ever even notice.

The point was to regulate (to some degree) and make people realize that bad posts are not acceptable. If the "bad posters" don't even ever notice that they've been put under some restrictions, then what's the point? I think that Foman's original idea was nearly flawless. Okay, start everyone at the same times, just to avoid that "fairness" argument, and a 6-minute severity cap on the "bad posters." There, now isn't that something we can all live with?

Not that I have final say on the matter. Achronos really needs to come in here and shed some light...

  • 08.01.2007 9:40 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Basilisk666
Not that I have final say on the matter. Achronos really needs to come in here and shed some light...
He'd just give some vague statement about 'there's something going on'.

  • 08.01.2007 9:47 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I propose a solution:

More Cowbell.

The ideas presented can be argued indefinitely but I don't think they'll produce any substantial results in the long run.

[Edited on 08.01.2007 9:53 PM PDT]

  • 08.01.2007 9:51 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Wow, thread got bigger since I got out of the house O_O

Building on Foman's idea, lets say for a spammer's first warning he gets 30 seconds added to the spam filter* (which is clearly told to him in the warning) and for each following offense he gets another one minute added (also clearly told to him in the warning). Eventually his spam filter time is up to 5 minutes (5 warnings) and he realizes he is sick of the spam filter and wants to become a trusted member of the forum (yay!).

To decrease the spam filter time for each warning he would need to make 15 posts without being warned/blacklisted. In his case he would have to do this 5 times (75 posts without warning or blacklisting) to get his trust rating and spam filter back to the normal 30 second timer. This would all be clearly explained to him in each of the warnings he received.

I think if the system worked like this we would see a decrease in spam and we would avoid the problem oldmichael addressed of people not having a way to get their trust back. Also, if the system worked this way we wouldn't have the elitism problem because trusted members would have a 30 second timer just like new members. And of course trust ratings would be hidden.

*In this scenario lets go with evilcam's idea that new members would start off with 30 second post filter time which would also be the same time for trusted members

Ð

[Edited on 08.01.2007 9:57 PM PDT]

  • 08.01.2007 9:56 PM PDT

.||./

My gamertag is SHADOWRIDERJP.

Posted by: Basilisk666
Okay, start everyone at the same times, just to avoid that "fairness" argument, and a 6-minute severity cap on the "bad posters." There, now isn't that something we can all live with?


Yes. I think that would be a very good compromise.

  • 08.01.2007 10:01 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Destinypedia - The Wiki for Bungie's Destiny
Posted by: DEATHPIMP72
Anyone but Foman. He smells like cheese.

Posted by: GHOSTRIDERJP
Posted by: Basilisk666
Okay, start everyone at the same times, just to avoid that "fairness" argument, and a 6-minute severity cap on the "bad posters." There, now isn't that something we can all live with?
Yes. I think that would be a very good compromise.

I could live with less harsh time restrictions for "bad posters" as well. Certainly, any actual time limits under this idea would be the choice of the site admin, and might need some tweaking to reach ideal levels. This sounds like a good place to start.

  • 08.01.2007 10:09 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Recon Number 54
Stop me if I am wrong, but isn't this all dependent on whether the "post throttle" (I find the term "spam filter" to be misleading) is dynamic and able to set a varying "time between posts" to individual member accounts, based on a value given by the trust system (of which we know so little)?

Has anyone crossed the first hurdle of determining that the post throttle is capable of assigning such time limits to specific user accounts and that it can be controlled by a feed from another system?


I don't think anyone who's posted so far has the answer to that one.

  • 08.01.2007 10:24 PM PDT